The "Black Hole" of woke....

Post Reply New Topic

I think you've got your tactics wrong there, if you treat someone acting in bad faith as if they're being genuine, you've wasted a bit of your time, but if you treat someone acting in good faith as if they're being disingenuous, you're at minimum going to piss them off, and potentially make an enemy both for yourself and your cause. Ever notice just how many people that hate wokeness have similar stories about being unfairly accused of things? It's not a coincidence.

I feel pretty strongly that one is entitled to genital or birth status preferences even if they can be framed as discriminatory, one is entitled to set whatever criteria they wish on who they might date or f**k.

In general, insisting an entitlement to partners (or to desirable partners) should be viewed as cringy and entitled.

Full disclosure, I've had moments of realizing my conscious views didn't match what seemed to actually go on subconsciously. It was horrifyingly shameful to recognize, so I understand why some people are prone to cringing away from having to consider that possibility. That said, some growth is painful and that doesn't mean it ought not to occur.

I have never heard anybody in the last 10 years or so use Neoliberal in a positive way or certainly describe themselves that way. The meaning has evolved to mean a person who is a shill for ruthless capitalism and are warmongers but try hide it by supporting some social programs. They are often conflated with the globalist elitists of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.
Neo liberal came into mainstream use as a descriptive term to describe Bill Clinton and like minded “Republican lite” Democrats. .

I'd imagine part of that is due to it's failings becoming increasingly obvious.



Neoliberalism was named because it was supposed to represent a return to more classical liberal ideas and away from New Liberalism. Reagan was also a neoliberal, as were practically all of the other neoconservatives.

Neoliberalism became everyone's boogieman because too many people are afraid to just call it capitalism despite it being the overwhelmingly dominant flavour for the past several decades. Right-populists would trigger their audience if they called it capitalism and progressives are too afraid they'll be called commies (despite that they'll get called that regardless).



You can make the case that it's more practical, more likely to achieve long-term success, etc, but it's hard to deny that justice delayed is justice denied. The entire time an injustice is allowed to continue the greater the harms that result so it's really hard to argue for delaying justice without recognizing that dilemma it places those advocating for delay place themselves in.

But further, part of the problem is that it's impossible to tell good faith and bad faith actors unless one knows the individual well-enough to make that judgment. The bad faith ones use the good faith ones for cover, so if there's concern about being judged, dealing with the people who are using them for cover will do more than complaining the criticism is unfair.

From what I have seen, many Libertarians position themselves on the right and are in some agreement with a lot of what the Trumpites espouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

I think our mutual friend definitely falls into this camp.

The women's prisons thing is probably the most serious, there have been multiple instances of unaltered males claiming transgender identity being housed with natal female inmates and going on to rape them, I think the only reason it hasn't been a bigger scandal has been media aversion to the stories.

Sorry Walrus. My thread, my responsibility and I've just not had time to read and respond for the last few days. I'm gonna get on to it today.

I would add enforced conformity to these ideas via censorship, shaming, harassment, and cancellation is an essential part of what the term "woke" has evolved into.

Presentism combined with black and white/zero-sum game thinking are key features of wokeness.

It needs to be understood as a revolutionary phenomenon. It is not traditionally a revolution in two main ways 1. It is not rebels throwing out by force government leaders and taking over TV stations. 2. It is decentralized.

But the main idea is that classic western liberalism is inherently racist and has been from the get-go, so all vestiges of it need to be replaced. All American history needs to be re-understood in this context. It is a very Orwellian revolution in that the key technique is changing the meaning of words and terms so that the opponents can be labeled racist(or some other ist/phobic) no matter what they say and how they say it.

The establishment of western liberalism was not the "natural" evolution of the "superior" western mind in the age of the renaissance. This was always a myth. The renaissance philosophers, scientists, scholars and artists were members of the aristocracy and maintained a firm belief in casteism, servitude and nobility. They (of course) believed in the inherent superiority of Europeans. Not surprisingly the renaissance coincided with the rise of imperialism, military expansion, colonialism and slavery.

The roots of liberalism—fundemental belief in individual freedom, in the fundamental moral equality of individuals, in a legal system based on equality, and in a representative form of government befitting a society of free people—all these were pioneered by Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages who drew on the moral revolution carried out by the early Church. These philosophers and canon lawyers.

It is therefore not surprising that the revulsion toward popular conservative views in western democracies such as the superiority of the white man, the enslavement of humans and who opposed the subsequent emancipation of women and the poor began with revolutionary christians. Not the MAGA fake christians who Jesus would have reviled if he came back. Revolutionary christians who fought for the freedom of all people such as the quakers, jesuits and Pentecostals (other similar groups not only bought equality in western democracies but set up missionaries in colonial empires protecting the poor from exploitation, uplifting human rights, using donations to build hospitals and most importantly bringing education to poor village people. Many of the educational institutions in Asia were started by catholic and protestant missionaries.

So unfortunately your claims that institutions that have their roots in western liberalism believed in equality of all men and were not racist is a lie. The only people who protected the rights and subsequent emancipation of slaves and who fought in the trenches against organisation racism were christian groups.

I'm not even a practicing christian but I'm not ignorant of the contribution of christians in stamping out institutional racism . The founding fathers of America who built the foundations of democracy in America were actually evil. They were a product of their time and when they spoke of "free men" they defined human as European. So therefore the foundations of the institutions in western democracies are infact inherently racist. This is a fact and I am a little surprised why somebody as intelligent as yourself is so anxious to buy into this anti-woke crap to the extent you would re-invent history??

I like being woke. When I see it being used as an insult by the right wing, I wonder "what is wrong with it?" I like being aware of the issues and about racism in society. I see nothing wrong with it and what's wrong with trying to fix systemic racism or protecting LGBT and including them? What's wrong with pointing out racism and misogyny?

Imagine women rights being called woke back in the days, I will ask "and whats wrong with including women in work places and letting the men be stay at home dads and women being the breadwinner, what's wrong with getting rid of gender roles? What's wrong with women being allowed to make their own choices without the men making it for them? If this is woke, what's wrong with it, how is this a bad thing?"

I think ... when advancing necessary change, there are always people who take it too far, or use and and abuse whatever the concept of the day is for their own purposes. But instead of focusing on the fanatics that push past the edge, I find it important to understand what it is that actually should get changed.

So, as LeagueGirl pointed out, one thing that had to change 100 years ago was the limited roles society assigned to women. Limiting the roles of women was not only overly constricting for women, and made it easier for women to be abused, but it also meant there was a lot of wasted and under-utilized talent that might have otherwise more readily been applied to the benefit of society.

Today, I do believe it is important for people to recognize how history forms the present, and some injustices continue past the removal of the obvious. I also believe it is important for people to recognize that people should be allowed to be who they are, instead of hiding their reality because society has too limited a norm. But what this all means to how we act and talk on a day to day basis is still evolving and getting figured out. And, at times, that process is going to go a little far and be a little too bizarre. The problem is, attacking the silliness is, too often, a cover for and a method of preventing the necessary change.

According to Alex, calling out another poster's bigotry is not a personal attack, so no. What I'm doing is holding you to the standards you endorsed when you called yourself woke, which includes using inclusive language in place of many everyday terms, e.g. "woman", which should be replaced by an acceptable alternative such as uterus haver, menstruator, birthing person (specifically for mothers), etc. Did you not realize that this sort of thing is part of what being woke entails?